Celsion's Phase III Blockbuster Data Revealed And It's Been Right Underneath Your Nose [View article]
Fair answer. Of Course I would disagree with much of your thesis which seems almost too simple for someone running a "fund" but then again it is such a small peice I assume you have some small % of the fund for discretionary riskier investments. For your sake, the ONE person you spoke with better have credentials matching Dr. Needhams, which I doubt, hard to have better credentials then him and his team at Duke.
However, your answer was thoughtful and professional so good luck with your position, we shall see who got it right.
Celsion's Phase III Blockbuster Data Revealed And It's Been Right Underneath Your Nose [View article]
LT,
You are short for a reason, what is that reason? I mean you seem like a sound investor who is simply playing the odds game of P3 cancer trials.
If you have sound reasons, then dispute the author, of course I wont hold my breathe for that becasue his logic is for the most part sound. But if you have another take on the stats and can back it up as he did with his SIM, we woiuld all like to hear it. Otherwise, gl with that short, lucky for you it is a small position.
Celsion's Phase III Blockbuster Data Revealed And It's Been Right Underneath Your Nose [View article]
Alex,
Thanks for your work here and your thoughts. While I agree with your conclusions, and appreciate the math you present, (notice short boy above did not contest the science, just the usual badgering of a long thesis), everyone reading your thesis I would also caution should also be aware that with your fairly simple SIM, there are assumptions that cannot be proven yet. That is your margin for error in this stat analysis.
Now to also be fair, I think the assumptions that both you and the company are making are not large leaps, rather very small ones to get to what looks like a very well run trial that may have been designed to succeed by NIH and FDA to create a better SOC for this growing area of cancer where many BP's have recently failed.
In conclusion, I tihnk your assumptions to get to your conclusion are fair and reasonbable and most certainly slant this investment into an above 50% shot of goal and maybe even closer to 60-70%, odds I would take everyday in cancer P3 land. Lets all hope you are right for the sake of the patients, the company and its shareholders and man on this one I am going to fully enjoy watching the shorts squirm and lose at the expensive of helping dying people see another family wedding!
Celsion's ThermoDox Dressed To Dazzle [View article]
Jordan,
Nice article backed up by sincere DD, rare it seems for SA.
Two comments,
1-Sage is not publishing His/her thoughts for a serious scientific discussion, it is there for other reasons as I am sure you realize. Imagine any large P3 study trying to tackle any cancer, a very easy target for shorts to poke holes in becasue as you said the goal is not curative but improvative! What they are miscalculating is the FACT that NIH & FDA has moved the bar seriously lower than normal, PFS endpoint & trial design, to have TD show enough improvement of current SOC for a stat sig hit and a SPA hit, nicely likely on both. Still TD has to work to make it but the margin for improvement in this case seems likely acheivable.
2-Adam F is a rare character. Like Sage, many of his statements are also not about science but support for certain positions. The other probelm with AF is that he is smart, meaning he knows cancer bear arguments are much easier than bull ones because of the difficulty of the problem and the rate statistically of P3 failures, nothing more. He should not be ignored or underestimated but se his calls on ARNA to demonstrate how stubbirn and wrong he can be, it is astonishing.
I would also point out that management has chosen, very strangely if you ask me no matter what their SIMS say, not to finance even after a very attractive run up in their PPS> Actionable if they are wrong, they will bankcrupt CLSN if HEAT fails so the next question for all longs to ask themselves is what do they know that would lead to this choice? The answer is ALOT.
2 More Reasons To Be Bullish On Celsion Ahead Of Phase III Data [View article]
Quesiton for you Alex, we kow they have access to certain data throught he clinical dashboard but two quesitons arise:
1-Would they know who lost their hair throught he dashboard? I mean do they actually see the patient of have some indication through the data set that someone lost their hair?
2-Because TD is trageted and has less side effects than Dox alone, do TD patients losee hair?
Celsion's HEAT Study: A Far From Certain Outcome - Part 2 [View article]
Let’s sum up this author shall we. OK, there is a large contingent on WS who simply understand that 96% of all late stage BT P3 trials fail to a large or small degree resulting in the underlying PPS typically going lower to vastly lower. We also know that science is never for sure or pure that wholes can be punched in any NCE or in this case an existing drug with a NDS. So we have this author writing simply the standard playbook of short BT WS. He/She is playing the odds, which to the shorts credit usually result in a win for the shorts.
OK let’s fast forward, recently there were two NCE's that killed the shorts that take this investing tract, they were Provenge & Belviq. I know of two funds that went under on their bets on these two shorts but there were most likely more. SRPT and a few others killed this investment thesis as well. So while simply shorting a BT based on the overwhelming stats of failure has proven to be profitable allot of times, it has been deadly sometimes.
Enter CLSN, this author could care less about his non sense arguments and his made up stories, he hired, as they all do, a scientific contrarian who provided these counter arguments, expert networks if you will, and he uses the poor slobs at SA and the street to get them published. But here is the kicker with CLSN, this one has run away from them too early and too far and the desperation is showing. PART 2 after a 12% up day after PART 1,Come on now!
So bravo to Trond, Sia, and others who have easily debunked this non sense to anyone seeking the truth. And while the CLSN HEAT study is by no means a sure thing, and anyone with their DD done here would agree, it seems based on many factors this one has higher than 60% chance of succeeding, the very same odds as Provenge & Belviq and in BT investing 60%+ for a large P3 study are great odds. Throw in the Q3 CC and the tone of the management team and the added insider purchases and you move the needle long into the 65-70% range, something rarely seen. Lastly let’s not forget the obvious irresponsible decision by MT to not finance before TL results and after a doubling of the PPS. This call is almost actionable should the trial fail, not that there would be much to action against, so you now have a solid 70% shot at goal in Jan. Unheard of on the long side and CLEARLY what this author fears the most. It is much harder to take the lose now if you are short than to prey you are right and make up facts to gain help with your losing short position, which IMO will get much worse before we get to TL results.
So adios to you Sage, I am done as is most reasonable people who understand who you are and why you are publishing this non sense. You truly deserve the losses you are about to suffer and I for one will be very celebratory when you see the following headline,
"Celsion announces top line results in the HEAT study which are statistically significant and prove with an unambiguous hit that Thermodox has proven it is both efficacious and safe and will help thousands of people in need of help with primary HCC Liver Cancer and no other options".
Celsion's HEAT Study: A Far From Certain Outcome - Part 2 [View article]
Trond,
You are a gentlemen who has done a great deal of DD for your investment universe. Countering non sense like this article is of course your perogative, but while you certainly accomplish helping those that cannot see through the obvious manipulation, (both articles published above $8.35 a key technical level and running), you also help those that are the clear enemy of your long position.
I appreciate all your DD and your online freindship, it is of great value, this author is simply not worthy of your level of giving, but then agin many in our DNDN days were not either and "Ocyan" gave in this fashion as well full well knowing he was also educating the worst of wall street. Thanks again for your help but trust this Sage fully understands that Part 1 & 2 have nothing to do with the truth and all to do with making money at the expense of others, or better said for he/she, losing less becasue the shorts are getting buried. All The Best, Has2
Celsion's HEAT Study: A Far From Certain Outcome - Part 2 [View article]
But of course you needed a Part 2, the stock ran away from you yet again today but then again these senseless attacks with nothing to back them up have little effect the second time becasue most are onto your non sense. VERY transparent Sage, VERY.
It is really going to be fun writing you after we are Stat Sig and asking you to out your total loses on this short.
Read Stocks last article, although I would beg him, Trond and anyone form discussing with you the real truth here about why insiders are so excited, (and your and outsider by the way encase you didn't realize), watching you lose will be my pleasure not to mention the poor suffering souls with HCC with no hope, it will be their pleasuire as well.
This is usually the time of year to wish everyone a happy and healthy but in your case scrooge is the only description that comes to mind. Govern yourself accordingly,
Celsion's HEAT Study: A Far From Certain Outcome [View article]
Trond,
You have of course laid out perfectly good arguments to shoot down this article, but the deaf do not hear and the blind do not see. His intention is not your or mine. He is short, stuck with a sizable loss thanks to the Q3 CC which I quoted the CEO above, and the insider purchases.
To be clear he is only trying to get out of his loss, he has no meaningful data to provide and like all shorts trapped, theymake up stuff to create FUD as you know.
They did it with DNDN, they tried to kill ARNA, and now they are doing it with CLSN. Great response but I promise oyu, it is wasted ion this author who has no intention of arguing the facts.
Think about the article that came out about VHC believing in faiirytales as they won their case against AAPL. Where is that short now? We are wasting out time but as always, thanks for your thoughts,
Celsion's HEAT Study: A Far From Certain Outcome [View article]
Quick Question for the author,
How many times do you think CLSN has met with the DMC?
Do you know that they have access through a data board to ongoing study information and have the right to discuss and have input into the environment?
Identify who was this quote from in 11/12 - "If the HEAT trial is successful, and we have NO reason to believe it will not be"
And this one - "All the data we have gotten to this point after we received word that the 380th PFS event would occur has been at the top of the chart"
Shorting the HEAT trial is just a BT investor shorting every trial, watching the PPS run away from them, knocking up huge losses and then writing a BS article and having AF write one to find a dirty way out of a bad short position.
Answer us this short boy, do you plan to hold oyur short position through data?
Celsion's HEAT Study: A Far From Certain Outcome [View article]
Again, you want scientific discussion but you offer little yourself.
The Trial was not stopped at Interim for 2 simple reasons, first the FDA allowed CLSN to skip P2 because they saw a more urgent need to get to the real test of the full P3 study. They saw what we all see except you in the P1 data set, you are comparing apples and oranges and I will not provide the DD for that statement for a short, I prefer you suffer when the trial proves Stat Sig and you look back on this article and cry. Second, since they are using 50mg of Dox, a very lethal amount that could kill someone if fully injected with TD, the FDA, despite the fact that there were no safety signals at Interim wanted to make sure by completing the study. IMO they had enough Efficacy to warrant the end of the trial but the safety had to be put to the full test. What you fail to discuss or realize is two things that will sink you and all shorts in this issue: 1-Dr. Pudzar never met a chemo he did not like, especially one that is 4x greater than any other. He loves TD and has set the trial design in great favor to TD succeeding. 2-And here is a gift for you shorts, if you know anything about BioStats, which I doubt because you did not discuss them at all, check the Alpha left after interim for the lock up. That is your hint for the day science boy. That is what the BS guys who are consulting at CLSN know and thatis what the insiders know, MORE THAN YOU.
Lastly, I love the way you try to understand the insider buying, as if someone would realistically waste 100K to have "cover" for a failed test. You are foolish my friend, if they don't have non public knowledge why would they need cover? What non sense. They are buying because the HEAT trial is going to succeed. A great newsflash for you but something many of us already know.
I only wish one day HCC primary touches your life, you will look back on these days of your investing and slap yourself for rooting against help for these poor souls. While this fact will not help the HEAT trial succeed, it speaks volumes about who you are to all of us. I noticed you only have 6 followers, enough said.
Celsion's HEAT Study: A Far From Certain Outcome [View article]
Look at his disclosure statement at the top, SAYS IT ALL.
I would also guess that you are AF's friend.
OK now let’s consider your POV beyond the very prejudice article to allow you out of your losing short position after a great run.
1-There is not one fact in your article that we don't already know. However what you seem to be implying is that because the P1 study was not convincing to you that you suppose the P3 won’t be, silly conclusion. P1 studies are always small in nature but scientifically a lot can be gleaned from them, that is the case here, read more.
2-The P2 study was skipped in conversation with the FDA and NIH. Guess what, they saw more in the P1 data then you are seeing, my vote is to stay with them. The FDA does not allow any BT to skip P2 unless they bless it. It has nothing to do with what they can afford as you imply that reason impeaches your comment as rookiesh.
3-You have taken a short position so your hope is for a failed P3 study, we get that. But you have not provided one viable bear argument past the P1 data, which if you had done more DD you would realize is not just the reason insiders are buying, I will leave it at that. Do you DD like others have.
Lastly, when MT the CEO used the words "potentially curative" were you listening. The company insiders are not buying on non public data but they are buying on their knowledge and experience for the last 8 years with TD. I consider their inside purchases about 75% certain with the rest being assumptions in their Sims based on their conversations with the FDA and the IDMC. GL with your short but betting against the box, well go back and listen to MT in the last CC, you should consider covering and going long, your article is VERY weak. The downside to your bet is infinity, the downside to the long bet is $7 minus your cost.
Insiders buying, FDA says skip P2, very confident 3Q cc, smart money buying allot, SPA, Orphan drug Status, Dox already proven, MT not diluting pre top line results despite a major run up because of his confidence level, I could go on but just end this by saying GL.
Vringo: Remix For The Price Of A Song [View article]
Lets put this argument to bed for once and for all Modernist.
If you went to a garage sale and found a painting that looked like the Mona Lisa and you paid 1K to the owner to buy it and then found out it actually was the Mona Lisa, is it worth less the day after you bought it just based on the price you paid?
Why don't you join us over at Investor village? It is not perfect but MUCH better than the ZOO and there are some very worthwhile posters, you may fit in better. Give it a shot. Has2
Vringo Vs. Google: $45 Million Evens The Playing Field [View article]
Steve,
While I agree with your article in part, the problem with your premise is that you are only displaying one side to the strategy, the benefit or the argument for the financing.
There is an argument against the financing that you could have shared as well for balance. That is that if VRNG Mgt was so confident in a GOOG settlement or a court victory for that matter, why not do the offering after and get $8 or $10 or even $20 PPS for the dilution but even better yet if you did settle, you would not need to dilute.
So they decided with your article that the benefit outweighed the cost and went forward. But make no mistake, there is a cost to this financing fro all of us, you as well.
To me this was a close call and I am sure it was to Perlman also. I am not so sure that leverage is about their cash position more than their legal position and there are also other financing methods that could have been considered other than straight dilution. However with that in mind and the balanced argument for and against, you articles have been very informative, please keep them coming.
Celsion's Phase III Blockbuster Data Revealed And It's Been Right Underneath Your Nose [View article]
However, your answer was thoughtful and professional so good luck with your position, we shall see who got it right.
Has2
Celsion's Phase III Blockbuster Data Revealed And It's Been Right Underneath Your Nose [View article]
You are short for a reason, what is that reason? I mean you seem like a sound investor who is simply playing the odds game of P3 cancer trials.
If you have sound reasons, then dispute the author, of course I wont hold my breathe for that becasue his logic is for the most part sound. But if you have another take on the stats and can back it up as he did with his SIM, we woiuld all like to hear it. Otherwise, gl with that short, lucky for you it is a small position.
Celsion's Phase III Blockbuster Data Revealed And It's Been Right Underneath Your Nose [View article]
Thanks for your work here and your thoughts. While I agree with your conclusions, and appreciate the math you present, (notice short boy above did not contest the science, just the usual badgering of a long thesis), everyone reading your thesis I would also caution should also be aware that with your fairly simple SIM, there are assumptions that cannot be proven yet. That is your margin for error in this stat analysis.
Now to also be fair, I think the assumptions that both you and the company are making are not large leaps, rather very small ones to get to what looks like a very well run trial that may have been designed to succeed by NIH and FDA to create a better SOC for this growing area of cancer where many BP's have recently failed.
In conclusion, I tihnk your assumptions to get to your conclusion are fair and reasonbable and most certainly slant this investment into an above 50% shot of goal and maybe even closer to 60-70%, odds I would take everyday in cancer P3 land. Lets all hope you are right for the sake of the patients, the company and its shareholders and man on this one I am going to fully enjoy watching the shorts squirm and lose at the expensive of helping dying people see another family wedding!
Celsion's ThermoDox Dressed To Dazzle [View article]
Nice article backed up by sincere DD, rare it seems for SA.
Two comments,
1-Sage is not publishing His/her thoughts for a serious scientific discussion, it is there for other reasons as I am sure you realize. Imagine any large P3 study trying to tackle any cancer, a very easy target for shorts to poke holes in becasue as you said the goal is not curative but improvative! What they are miscalculating is the FACT that NIH & FDA has moved the bar seriously lower than normal, PFS endpoint & trial design, to have TD show enough improvement of current SOC for a stat sig hit and a SPA hit, nicely likely on both. Still TD has to work to make it but the margin for improvement in this case seems likely acheivable.
2-Adam F is a rare character. Like Sage, many of his statements are also not about science but support for certain positions. The other probelm with AF is that he is smart, meaning he knows cancer bear arguments are much easier than bull ones because of the difficulty of the problem and the rate statistically of P3 failures, nothing more. He should not be ignored or underestimated but se his calls on ARNA to demonstrate how stubbirn and wrong he can be, it is astonishing.
I would also point out that management has chosen, very strangely if you ask me no matter what their SIMS say, not to finance even after a very attractive run up in their PPS> Actionable if they are wrong, they will bankcrupt CLSN if HEAT fails so the next question for all longs to ask themselves is what do they know that would lead to this choice? The answer is ALOT.
Thanks again for the balanced veiw.
2 More Reasons To Be Bullish On Celsion Ahead Of Phase III Data [View article]
1-Would they know who lost their hair throught he dashboard? I mean do they actually see the patient of have some indication through the data set that someone lost their hair?
2-Because TD is trageted and has less side effects than Dox alone, do TD patients losee hair?
Thanks in advance to anyone who has the answers,
Has2
Celsion's HEAT Study: A Far From Certain Outcome - Part 2 [View article]
OK let’s fast forward, recently there were two NCE's that killed the shorts that take this investing tract, they were Provenge & Belviq. I know of two funds that went under on their bets on these two shorts but there were most likely more. SRPT and a few others killed this investment thesis as well. So while simply shorting a BT based on the overwhelming stats of failure has proven to be profitable allot of times, it has been deadly sometimes.
Enter CLSN, this author could care less about his non sense arguments and his made up stories, he hired, as they all do, a scientific contrarian who provided these counter arguments, expert networks if you will, and he uses the poor slobs at SA and the street to get them published. But here is the kicker with CLSN, this one has run away from them too early and too far and the desperation is showing. PART 2 after a 12% up day after PART 1,Come on now!
So bravo to Trond, Sia, and others who have easily debunked this non sense to anyone seeking the truth. And while the CLSN HEAT study is by no means a sure thing, and anyone with their DD done here would agree, it seems based on many factors this one has higher than 60% chance of succeeding, the very same odds as Provenge & Belviq and in BT investing 60%+ for a large P3 study are great odds. Throw in the Q3 CC and the tone of the management team and the added insider purchases and you move the needle long into the 65-70% range, something rarely seen. Lastly let’s not forget the obvious irresponsible decision by MT to not finance before TL results and after a doubling of the PPS. This call is almost actionable should the trial fail, not that there would be much to action against, so you now have a solid 70% shot at goal in Jan. Unheard of on the long side and CLEARLY what this author fears the most. It is much harder to take the lose now if you are short than to prey you are right and make up facts to gain help with your losing short position, which IMO will get much worse before we get to TL results.
So adios to you Sage, I am done as is most reasonable people who understand who you are and why you are publishing this non sense. You truly deserve the losses you are about to suffer and I for one will be very celebratory when you see the following headline,
"Celsion announces top line results in the HEAT study which are statistically significant and prove with an unambiguous hit that Thermodox has proven it is both efficacious and safe and will help thousands of people in need of help with primary HCC Liver Cancer and no other options".
Celsion's HEAT Study: A Far From Certain Outcome - Part 2 [View article]
You are a gentlemen who has done a great deal of DD for your investment universe. Countering non sense like this article is of course your perogative, but while you certainly accomplish helping those that cannot see through the obvious manipulation, (both articles published above $8.35 a key technical level and running), you also help those that are the clear enemy of your long position.
I appreciate all your DD and your online freindship, it is of great value, this author is simply not worthy of your level of giving, but then agin many in our DNDN days were not either and "Ocyan" gave in this fashion as well full well knowing he was also educating the worst of wall street. Thanks again for your help but trust this Sage fully understands that Part 1 & 2 have nothing to do with the truth and all to do with making money at the expense of others, or better said for he/she, losing less becasue the shorts are getting buried. All The Best, Has2
Celsion's HEAT Study: A Far From Certain Outcome - Part 2 [View article]
It is really going to be fun writing you after we are Stat Sig and asking you to out your total loses on this short.
Read Stocks last article, although I would beg him, Trond and anyone form discussing with you the real truth here about why insiders are so excited, (and your and outsider by the way encase you didn't realize), watching you lose will be my pleasure not to mention the poor suffering souls with HCC with no hope, it will be their pleasuire as well.
This is usually the time of year to wish everyone a happy and healthy but in your case scrooge is the only description that comes to mind. Govern yourself accordingly,
Celsion's HEAT Study: A Far From Certain Outcome [View article]
You have of course laid out perfectly good arguments to shoot down this article, but the deaf do not hear and the blind do not see. His intention is not your or mine. He is short, stuck with a sizable loss thanks to the Q3 CC which I quoted the CEO above, and the insider purchases.
To be clear he is only trying to get out of his loss, he has no meaningful data to provide and like all shorts trapped, theymake up stuff to create FUD as you know.
They did it with DNDN, they tried to kill ARNA, and now they are doing it with CLSN. Great response but I promise oyu, it is wasted ion this author who has no intention of arguing the facts.
Think about the article that came out about VHC believing in faiirytales as they won their case against AAPL. Where is that short now? We are wasting out time but as always, thanks for your thoughts,
Has2
Celsion's HEAT Study: A Far From Certain Outcome [View article]
How many times do you think CLSN has met with the DMC?
Do you know that they have access through a data board to ongoing study information and have the right to discuss and have input into the environment?
Identify who was this quote from in 11/12 - "If the HEAT trial is successful, and we have NO reason to believe it will not be"
And this one - "All the data we have gotten to this point after we received word that the 380th PFS event would occur has been at the top of the chart"
Shorting the HEAT trial is just a BT investor shorting every trial, watching the PPS run away from them, knocking up huge losses and then writing a BS article and having AF write one to find a dirty way out of a bad short position.
Answer us this short boy, do you plan to hold oyur short position through data?
Celsion's HEAT Study: A Far From Certain Outcome [View article]
The Trial was not stopped at Interim for 2 simple reasons, first the FDA allowed CLSN to skip P2 because they saw a more urgent need to get to the real test of the full P3 study. They saw what we all see except you in the P1 data set, you are comparing apples and oranges and I will not provide the DD for that statement for a short, I prefer you suffer when the trial proves Stat Sig and you look back on this article and cry. Second, since they are using 50mg of Dox, a very lethal amount that could kill someone if fully injected with TD, the FDA, despite the fact that there were no safety signals at Interim wanted to make sure by completing the study. IMO they had enough Efficacy to warrant the end of the trial but the safety had to be put to the full test. What you fail to discuss or realize is two things that will sink you and all shorts in this issue:
1-Dr. Pudzar never met a chemo he did not like, especially one that is 4x greater than any other. He loves TD and has set the trial design in great favor to TD succeeding.
2-And here is a gift for you shorts, if you know anything about BioStats, which I doubt because you did not discuss them at all, check the Alpha left after interim for the lock up. That is your hint for the day science boy. That is what the BS guys who are consulting at CLSN know and thatis what the insiders know, MORE THAN YOU.
Lastly, I love the way you try to understand the insider buying, as if someone would realistically waste 100K to have "cover" for a failed test. You are foolish my friend, if they don't have non public knowledge why would they need cover? What non sense. They are buying because the HEAT trial is going to succeed. A great newsflash for you but something many of us already know.
I only wish one day HCC primary touches your life, you will look back on these days of your investing and slap yourself for rooting against help for these poor souls. While this fact will not help the HEAT trial succeed, it speaks volumes about who you are to all of us. I noticed you only have 6 followers, enough said.
Celsion's HEAT Study: A Far From Certain Outcome [View article]
I would also guess that you are AF's friend.
OK now let’s consider your POV beyond the very prejudice article to allow you out of your losing short position after a great run.
1-There is not one fact in your article that we don't already know. However what you seem to be implying is that because the P1 study was not convincing to you that you suppose the P3 won’t be, silly conclusion. P1 studies are always small in nature but scientifically a lot can be gleaned from them, that is the case here, read more.
2-The P2 study was skipped in conversation with the FDA and NIH. Guess what, they saw more in the P1 data then you are seeing, my vote is to stay with them. The FDA does not allow any BT to skip P2 unless they bless it. It has nothing to do with what they can afford as you imply that reason impeaches your comment as rookiesh.
3-You have taken a short position so your hope is for a failed P3 study, we get that. But you have not provided one viable bear argument past the P1 data, which if you had done more DD you would realize is not just the reason insiders are buying, I will leave it at that. Do you DD like others have.
Lastly, when MT the CEO used the words "potentially curative" were you listening. The company insiders are not buying on non public data but they are buying on their knowledge and experience for the last 8 years with TD. I consider their inside purchases about 75% certain with the rest being assumptions in their Sims based on their conversations with the FDA and the IDMC. GL with your short but betting against the box, well go back and listen to MT in the last CC, you should consider covering and going long, your article is VERY weak. The downside to your bet is infinity, the downside to the long bet is $7 minus your cost.
Insiders buying, FDA says skip P2, very confident 3Q cc, smart money buying allot, SPA, Orphan drug Status, Dox already proven, MT not diluting pre top line results despite a major run up because of his confidence level, I could go on but just end this by saying GL.
Vringo: Remix For The Price Of A Song [View article]
If you went to a garage sale and found a painting that looked like the Mona Lisa and you paid 1K to the owner to buy it and then found out it actually was the Mona Lisa, is it worth less the day after you bought it just based on the price you paid?
A Hearty Recommendation: Cody Willard [View instapost]
Why don't you join us over at Investor village? It is not perfect but MUCH better than the ZOO and there are some very worthwhile posters, you may fit in better. Give it a shot. Has2
Vringo Vs. Google: $45 Million Evens The Playing Field [View article]
While I agree with your article in part, the problem with your premise is that you are only displaying one side to the strategy, the benefit or the argument for the financing.
There is an argument against the financing that you could have shared as well for balance. That is that if VRNG Mgt was so confident in a GOOG settlement or a court victory for that matter, why not do the offering after and get $8 or $10 or even $20 PPS for the dilution but even better yet if you did settle, you would not need to dilute.
So they decided with your article that the benefit outweighed the cost and went forward. But make no mistake, there is a cost to this financing fro all of us, you as well.
To me this was a close call and I am sure it was to Perlman also. I am not so sure that leverage is about their cash position more than their legal position and there are also other financing methods that could have been considered other than straight dilution. However with that in mind and the balanced argument for and against, you articles have been very informative, please keep them coming.